At DeKALB Molded Plastics, we specialize in 1-8′, multi-nozzle plastic products from 3 to 150 pounds. With presses ranging in tonnage from 300 to 750 tons, we are well equipped to handle a variety of projects that require large part injection molding. The structural foam process offers one of the most robust technology platforms available when you consider part complexity versus part size.
STILL COMPARING? LET'S TALK.
With so many molding processes available, it can be like a puzzle trying to figure out which is best for your product. Luckily, DeKALB is here to clear up the clutter. While injection molding is probably the most common molding process out there, considering structural foam as an alternative can:
Structural foam is lauded for its ability to mold large plastic parts. As it’s a low-pressure injection molding process using a chemical blowing agent, parts are created with additional “structure” that provides increased strength. Meanwhile, injection molding is limited to mostly small critical tolerance parts.
While both structural foam and injection molding offer variable walls, it’s structural foam that gives you the most flexibility – and the thickest wall sections. Structural foam allows a range of thickness from .1875” to .5”, while injection molding is generally limited: .06” to .1875”.
It’s all about the bottom line. If you’re looking to get more bang for your buck, structural foam is the way to go. Injection molding has higher upfront tooling costs while structural foam’s low-pressure process allows for lower cost aluminum tooling. For larger plastic parts, it’s a no brainer.
The structural foam process promotes a weight savings of up to 20% versus injection molding due to the foaming methodology. This can equate to both material and transportation cost reductions.
Do you have an application you would like to explore as a structural foam process? Contact us and we will send you a sample kit including examples from above.
As we’ve said before on the topic of injection molding – there’s more than one way to bake a cake. Today’s competitive landscape means everyone is looking for any edge they can get to win. Considering structural foam molding as an alternative to reaction injection molding (commonly known as RIM manufacturing) can:
Thinking about RIM vs. structural foam molding? Structural foam is very robust when it comes to material choices. Reaction injection molding utilizes more expensive raw materials due to the usage of thermoset polymers which can’t be recycled. Typical volumes for the RIM process are relatively small, ranging from 25 to 2,000 parts. On the other hand, structural foam can be used with nearly any thermoplastic, including thermoplastic rubber, that add strength to the final molded part. In addition, structural foam has amongst the widest production range, from 100 to 100,000+ parts.
Unfortunately, the RIM process is not conducive to sustainability. Thermosets cannot be recycled due to the permanent chemical bonds that are formed when the material is molded. Meanwhile, the thermoplastics used in structural foam molding are easily recyclable – in fact, DeKALB processes millions of pounds of recycled resin materials annually.
Savings with structural foam can come from a variety of areas, including multiple part integration (inserts, brackets, fasteners, hinges, etc.) which eliminate expensive secondary operations. The ability to mold in louvers, holes and threads further drives down your cost. Outside of cost reductions, both material flexibility and sustainability add to the positive ROI of structural foam.
Do you have an application you would like to explore as a structural foam process? Contact us and we will send you a sample kit including examples from above.
There are many molding processes out there, but they’re not all created equal. Considering structural foam molding as an alternative to rotational molding can:
One of the primary benefits of structural foam is the robust material choices available. Most thermoplastics can be used in structural foam molding while rotational molding has a more limited subset of materials.
Structural foam has a typical production range of 100 to 100,000+ parts while rotational molding volumes usually fall between 50 and 1,000 parts. This is attributed to a reduced production cycle with structural foam, which can be as high as a 15 to 1 ratio.
Yet another benefit when considering rotational molding vs. structural foam molding is consistent wall thickness. Look at structural foam as “precision thickness” versus rotational molding as “gravity induced” placement of plastic.
Do you have an application you would like to explore as a structural foam process? Contact us and we will send you a sample kit including examples from above.
There’s more than one way to bake a cake. In today’s world where companies are continuously looking for ways to enhance their brand, differentiate product, and do it all at a lower cost, that saying couldn’t be truer. Considering structural foam as an alternative to thermoforming could yield all three benefits and more. Areas to consider when thinking about thermoforming vs. structural foam molding include:
The design stage provides the initial entry point for ‘getting it right the first time.’ Careful consideration and emphasis are placed upon maximizing production efficiencies, size, shape, and tooling components. Leveraging these attributes early in the process helps ensure a continuous payback from the initial production run. With structural foam, savings can include multiple part integration (inserts, brackets, fasteners, etc.) equating to an elimination of costly secondary operations. You can also mold in louvers, holes, and grills, further driving your cost savings. Integrating the existing structures into molded structural foam components can provide a quick ROI.
Features |
Structural Foam | RIM | Pressure Forming | Stamped Metal | Diecast Metal | Fiberglass Layup | Rotational Molding | SMC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tooling | ||||||||
| Variable Walls | ||||||||
| Part Complexity | ||||||||
| Finishing Cost | ||||||||
| Volume (EAV) | 200-2000 | 50-2000 | 50-1000 | 50-10000 | 50-5000 | 50-1000 | 50-1000 | 1000-25000 |
| Dimensions | ||||||||
| Mechanical Strength |
